[!]

Hah! Imagine that. Needing to get a fucking certificate/permission from Microsoft to sell your own applications.
Oh, did they say it will not take more than five days?
Well, THEY CAN STILL FUCK OFF!

Microsoft: Windows 8.1 app certification to take no more than five days.

In a post on the Fire Hose blog, Microsoft stated, "Beginning Oct. 18, the Windows Store team has committed to no more than five days for initial certification, with many apps passing within a day or two, for apps developers submit for Windows 8.1." The blog adds that while the Windows Store will continue to host apps made for the older Windows 8, it encourages developers to update their products so they will work best on Windows 8.1, including putting in support for automatic app updates.

Just to make sure Microsoft gets my message clearly, I will not ask permission from nobody to distribute my own applications, SO YES, MICROSOFT, YOU CAN STILL FUCK OFF!

fuck-off.gif (164.87 KiB) Viewed 8586 times

I actually downloaded some Android development tools because Android does not force me to ask permission from Google and does not force me to use the Play Store to use and distribute my own applications. Microsoft is killing itself off, one developer at a time. If/When all operating systems are locked down, I will just quit the development business. Simple as that. They can keep their shiney toys and I will keep my freedom.

[!]

More filth trying to con young people into "coding" for their creepy Orwellian walled prisons gardens. Judging by the people they use in that commercial, it is clear they are desperate. Trying to reach and con as many fools as possible.



They can still fuck off.

censor-mask.jpg (47.8 KiB) Viewed 8580 times

[!]

How wonderful, just like the prisoners! All in the name of "quality assurance".

Mondelez International may use Microsoft Kinect to track your snack buying habits.

The ritual (wtf?) may now be video-recorded for quality assurance, thanks to a new Mondelez International program called Smart Shelf. The program uses Kinect for Windows, a Microsoft program available for other developers to use its motion-tracking technology. Mondelez is using it to track shoppers as they look at various Mondelez-associated brands, such as Triscuit, Ritz and Oreo.

article-0-1184DCD8000005DC-50_233x355.jpg (15.51 KiB) Viewed 8573 times

[!]

Funny how one person can control the standard which the entire Web relies upon and will use. Open? Free? My ass.

28545FallenAngel.jpg (75.79 KiB) Viewed 8570 times

Lowering your standards: DRM and the future of the W3C.

On Monday, the W3C announced that its Director, Tim Berners-Lee, had determined that the "playback of protected content" was in scope for the W3C HTML Working Group's new charter, overriding EFF's formal objection against its inclusion. This means the controversial Encrypted Media Extension (EME) proposal will continue to be part of that group's work product, and may be included in the W3C's HTML5.1 standard. If EME goes through to become part of a W3C recommendation, you can expect to hear DRM vendors, DRM-locked content providers like Netflix, and browser makers like Microsoft, Opera, and Google stating that they can now offer W3C standards compliant "content protection" for Web video.

We're deeply disappointed. We've argued before as to why EME and other protected media proposals are different from other standards . By approving this idea, the W3C has ceded control of the "user agent" (the term for a Web browser in W3C parlance) to a third-party, the content distributor. That breaks a-perhaps until now unspoken-assurance about who has the final say in your Web experience, and indeed who has ultimate control over your computing device.

EFF believes that's a dangerous step for an organization that is seen by many as the guardian of the open Web to take. We have rehashed this argument many times before, in person with Tim Berners-Lee, with staff members and, along with hundreds of others, in online interactions with the W3C's other participants.

But there's another argument that we've made more privately. It's an argument that is less about the damage that sanctioning restricted media does to users, and more about the damage it will do to the W3C.

At the W3C's advisory council meeting in Tokyo, EFF spoke to many technologists working on Web standards. It's clear to us that the engineering consensus at the consortium is the same as within the Web community, which is the same almost anywhere else: that DRM is a pain to design, does little to prevent piracy, and is by its nature, user-unfriendly. Nonetheless, many technologists have resigned themselves to believing that until the dominant rightsholders in Hollywood finally give up on it (as the much of the software and music industry already has), we're stuck with implementing it.

The EME, they said, was a reasonable compromise between what these contracts demand, and the reality of the Web. A Web where movies are fenced away in EME's DRM-ridden binary blobs is, the W3C's pragmatists say, no worse than the current environment where Silverlight and Flash serve the purpose of preventing unauthorized behavior.

We pointed out that EME would by no means be the last "protected content" proposal to be put forward for the W3C's consideration. EME is exclusively concerned with video content, because EME's primary advocate, Netflix, is still required to wrap some of its film and TV offerings in DRM as part of its legacy contracts with Hollywood. But there are plenty of other rightsholders beyond Hollywood who would like to impose controls on how their content is consumed.

Just five years ago, font companies tried to demand DRM-like standards for embedded Web fonts. These Web typography wars fizzled out without the adoption of these restrictions, but now that such technical restrictions are clearly "in scope," why wouldn't typographers come back with an argument for new limits on what browsers can do?

Indeed, within a few weeks of EME hitting the headlines, a community group within W3C formed around the idea of locking away Web code, so that Web applications could only be executed but not examined online. Static image creators such as photographers are eager for the W3C to help lock down embedded images. Shortly after our Tokyo discussions, another group proposed their new W3C use-case: "protecting" content that had been saved locally from a Web page from being accessed without further restrictions. Meanwhile, publishers have advocated that HTML textual content should have DRM features for many years.

In our conversations with the W3C, we argued that the W3C needed to develop a clearly defined line against the wave of DRM systems it will now be encouraged to adopt.

A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's a Web where user agents-browsers-must navigate a nest of enforced duties every time they visit a page. It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable.

To be clear, we don't think all of these proposals will come to fruition. We appreciate that there's no great hunger for DRM at the W3C. Many W3C participants held their nose to accept even the EME draft, which was carefully drafted to position itself as far away from the taint of DRM as was possible for a standard solely intended to be used for DRM systems.

But the W3C has now accepted "content protection". By discarding the principle that users should be in charge of user agents, as well as the principle that all the information needed to interoperate with a standard should be open to all prospective implementers, they've opened the door for the many rightsholders who would like the same control for themselves.

The W3C is now in an unenviable position. It can either limit its "content protection" efforts to the aims of a privileged few, like Hollywood. Or it can let a thousand "content protection systems" bloom, and allow any rightsholder group to chip away at software interoperability and users' control.

EFF is still a W3C member, and we'll do our best to work with other organizations within and without the consortium to help it fight off the worse consequences of accepting DRM. But it's not easy to defend a king who has already invited its attackers across his moat.

Still, even if the W3C has made the wrong decision, that doesn't mean the Web will. The W3C has parted ways with the wider Web before: in the early 2000s, its choice to promote XHTML (an unpopular and restrictive variant of HTML) as the future led to Mozilla, Apple and Opera forming the independent WHATWG. It was WHATWG's vision of a dynamic, application-oriented Web that won-so decisively, in fact, that the W3C later re-adopted it and made it the W3C's own HTML5 deliverable.

Recently, WHATWG has diplomatically parted with the W3C again. Its "HTML Living Standard" continues to be developed in tandem with the W3C's version of the HTML standard, and does not contain EME or any other such DRM-enabling proposals.

By contrast, W3C has now put its weight behind a restrictive future: let's call it "DRM-HTML". Others have certainly bet against open, interoperable standards and user control before. It's just surprising and disappointing to see the W3C and its Director gamble against the precedent of their own success, as well as the fears and consciences of so many of their colleagues.

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

Fine job you old coot. That's looking out for the little guy. Letting the corporate juggernauts sink their teeth into everyone's computer.

Sounds like old Tim got bought off by the Hollywood Mafia. I wonder how many pieces of silver it cost to sell us out.

[!]

Microsoft opens up Windows 8.1 apps to allow for speech recognition.

Obviously, the ability to add a way for Windows 8.1 apps to use speech-based features will open up some new avenues that have previously not been available before now.

But of course, like even more spying in peoples' homes.

spy.png (326.92 KiB) Viewed 8561 times

In other news... don't trust those rented PCs...

Aaron's agrees to stop spying on computer renters.

Aaron's Inc., a rent-to-own retailer, has agreed to stop using software to secretly spy on and photograph customers who rented computers.

The Federal Trade Commission had accused Aaron's and its franchisees of using software to monitor customers' computer keystrokes and secretly watch them in their homes through the computers' webcams.

In some instances, the company captured images of customers engaged in what the FTC called "intimate activities."

But worry not, next time, they will ask for your consent.

The settlement also requires Aaron's to give clear notice and obtain consent from consumers in order to install technology that allows location tracking of a rented product.

For computer rentals, the company will have to give notice to consumers not only when it initially rents the product, but also at the time the tracking technology is activated, unless the product has been reported by the consumer as lost or stolen.

[!]

This shit is fucked'up... "improving network performance, fraud detection" haha what a joke... and of course, serving ads that are "more relevant to you." LOL

Bell Canada, the largest telecommunications company, providing Mobile phone, TV, high speed and wireless Internet, and residential Home phone services, to track Web and TV surfing habits for advertising purposes.

In a statement on its privacy page, the company that provides TV, Internet and phone and mobile services said as of November 16, "Bell will begin using certain information about your account and network usage for select purposes" such as improving network performance, fraud detection, and serving ads that are "more relevant to you."

The things Bell will track include TV viewing, calling patterns, mobile app usage, the subscriber's location and his or her web surfing history.

"The scope of Bell's intended personal data usage is remarkable," tech law expert Michael Geist wrote on his blog. "Given that many of its customers will have bundled Internet, wireless, and television services, the company will be tracking everything: which websites they visit, what search terms they enter, what television shows they watch, what applications they use, and what phone calls they make. All of that data will be correlated with their location, age, gender, and more."

woman-being-stalked.jpg (32.25 KiB) Viewed 8551 times

(Sorry, had to use a "Blur bastards" picture, couldn't find a "normal" one.)

[!]

Facebook tests software to track your cursor on screen.

Facebook Inc. is testing technology that would greatly expand the scope of data that it collects about its users, the head of the company's analytics group said Tuesday.

The social network may start collecting data on minute user interactions with its content, such as how long a user's cursor hovers over a certain part of its website, or whether a user's newsfeed is visible at a given moment on the screen of his or her mobile phone, Facebook analytics chief Ken Rudin said Tuesday during an interview.

fb_data_center.jpg (83.64 KiB) Viewed 8547 times

[!]

Remember this crap? When Microsoft hired some politician? Heck, there maybe even were two or more of such cases.

...he was an adviser during the administration of President Bill Clinton and for the 2008 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Mr. Penn also has written about social and political trends, and once wrote an online column for The Wall Street Journal.

In an interview, Mr. Penn said he is assembling a "SWAT team" to work on thorny strategy questions around Microsoft consumer projects.

...so anyway, long story short, do you know what you get when you hire a politician in a tech company? That's right, politics, not technology nor innovation. That's why the sort of even more crappier PR coming out of Microsoft. The war on this or that. Microsoft owns Nokia, they start a show, a pretend-war between Microsoft and Nokia. Creating two camps, you buy Lumia, MS profits, you buy Surface, MS profits. MetroTards in the middle.

Surface 2 is no match for Nokia's Lumia 2520 says Qualcomm.

Qualcomm executives have claimed that the Snapdragon-powered Nokia Lumia 2520 tablet running on Windows RT 8.1 gives a much superior performance compared to the Microsoft Surface 2.

Fucking idiots. In the end, who gives a flying fuck? Really. There is no innovation. Nothing. Just a new crappier theme on Windows 7 and they call it "Start Screen". Let's be honest here, that's what this is all about. All the fuss is just about a fucking theme! DOS to Windows 3.x to NT to XP ...to even stretching it maybe to 7, these were innovations. Windows 8.x is not. It's a new bastard theme on top of a good operating system. It's a new Orwellian theme to lock peoples' devices down. To take freedom and 30% of profit away from the developers.

Meanwhile, all the bought out whores on the "news" Web sites and mainstream forums like MSFN and Ars Technica, they are at full gear censoring people. Disgusting is the word. I killed that bastard theme to never see it again with a start menu replacer. No tiles, no hot corners, no full screen "apps", no walled prison garden store, no politics, no nothing. They can all fuck off.

OB-TV232_Penn_D_D_20120719142838.jpg (26.36 KiB) Viewed 8542 times

[!]

LinkedIn's new "Intro" service is a catastrophic security failure waiting to happen.

Here's the backstory. Apple locks down its iOS Mail program tightly. This isn't just because Apple loves a walled garden, though it does, but because giving developers too much access to such a vital part of the platform could compromise malware security. LinkedIn has published a lengthy breakdown of how they've defeated this process and made your email service fundamentally less secure in doing so, all in the name of bringing you clickable profiles within an email address, like so:

intro_before_after.png (39.33 KiB) Viewed 8538 times

Man in the Middle:

Here's the problem. What LinkedIn does is redirect all email you receive across its own IMAP servers, as shown below.

intro_imap_proxy.png (51.13 KiB) Viewed 8538 times

The company is at least up-front about this, writing: "Normally your device connects directly to the servers of your email provider (Gmail, Yahoo, AOL, etc.), but we can configure the device to connect to the Intro proxy server instead."

Note that this isn't just a service for LinkedIn users communicating over LinkedIn's proprietary email service. If it was, there wouldn't be so much of a problem. The idea here is that LinkedIn can cross-reference and inject profile information about people communicating with you who also happen to have LinkedIn profiles. The company explains a little more in the same post, writing: "The Intro proxy server speaks the IMAP protocol just like an email provider, but it doesn't store messages itself. Instead, it forwards requests from the device to your email provider, and forwards responses from the email provider back to the device. En route, it inserts Intro information at the beginning of each message body - we call this the top bar."

What LinkedIn is describing here is a classic man-in-the-middle attack in which an organization intercepts data between Points A and B by secretly positioning itself to snoop on the data stream. Granted, LinkedIn isn't doing this in secret -- but that's still the fundamental security flaw. If you use your email for anything remotely confidential, LInkedIn is now sitting in a position to retain a copy. And since their own server is now the pass-through point for your authentication credentials and security data, you're going to have a hard time keeping anything private.

A blog post at Bishop Fox goes on to detail the problems with this program, which are legion. You're changing the cryptographic signature of your own email (or allowing LinkedIn) to change it, you're connecting to a third-party to provide a vital link in a service, LinkedIn is making changes to the way your iPhone operates that could be exploited to compromise its security at a later date, the company's privacy policy is vague, it's already under investigation for spamming address books and lifting data out of other email providers without permission, and the company had 6.5 million passwords stolen last year. (LinkedIn denies the allegation).

Belatedly, the company appears to have realized it might as well have hung a sign over the door reading: "Welcome NSA, Hackers, Ne'er Do-Wells!" It has since pledged to respect its own privacy policy, made vague comments about creating a new Mail profile on the iPhone but left old profiles unaffected (as though this would impact the fact that your mail was still being fed through the proxy service) and pledges really, really, good security. Like, totally the best.

This is a terrible idea. Do not sign up for an email service with a company that already engages in shady "recruitment" tactics and scans open browser windows without your consent. Don't trust the security of a company with massive password breach issues. And don't tell corporate IT that you think this sounds like a fine and dandy idea unless you're trying to make your Sysadmin drop dead of a coronary.

In short: Creeps.

istock_000020544512small_2_2.jpg (15.13 KiB) Viewed 8538 times

Excellent quotes:

It amazes me that people still don't understand that social networks don't exist to provide services to users.... they exist to turn users into products that can be sold.

They are going to keep getting more invasive as they figure out new ways to screw you over for a profit.

A few years ago I 'tried' to apply for a job for a local company. Sent my resume to them in a plain text email, which wasn't good enough, they replied, I need send it through LinkedIn. "WTF is LinkedIn?", I thought. Got part of the way through the signup process before realizing that this site wants an awful lot of personal information from me, and I canceled out before sending any info. Called the company saying that I live nearby and could just drop off my printed resume to them, still wasn't acceptable, they needed any applications to be done only via LinkedIn, that ended that job search. Knowing more and moew about LinkedIn today makes me grateful I don't have an account with them.

A decade or more ago the internet was so full of promise for "Better living through technology", nowadays it seems so damn invasive in so many ways I'm wondering whether using todays tech is worth the price. I'm starting to see why more and more people are "pulling the technology plug" out and living a simpler, no tech life. I'm seriously considering doing just that myself one day. It's gotten less and less attractive to me.